Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

check for match against debian archive #49

Open
vagrantc opened this issue Aug 11, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

check for match against debian archive #49

vagrantc opened this issue Aug 11, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@vagrantc
Copy link

Wild off-the-top-of-my head wishlist item here:

buildinfo.debian.net appears to check if there are buildinfo files that successfully reproduced the binaries:

https://buildinfo.debian.net/sources/u-boot/2018.07+dfsg-1

It would be interesting if it could compare the produced hashes against the in-archive packages, and see which .buildinfo files match, and ideally expose matching in-archive .deb with some api, so someone could ask to explicitly rebuild against the archive by querying buildinfo.debian.net.

I'm sure this requires a fair amount of additional parsing; e.g. downloading all the Packages files for target architectures on a regular basis, and then updating the whole database.

Maybe it's infeasible, or the wrong place to do this sort of thing.

The main advantage to this approach is it would allow to retroactively provide a database of .buildinfo files that match the in-archive files once we get around to publicly publishing the .buildinfo files that are currently uploaded to the official Debian archive... and also .buildinfo files that happened to match the archive from our test infrastructure.

@lamby
Copy link
Owner

lamby commented Aug 11, 2018

Wouldn't we get this "for free" once we simply push the archive ones to buildinfo.debian.net?

@vagrantc
Copy link
Author

Wouldn't we get this "for free" once we simply push the archive ones
to buildinfo.debian.net?

We could manually compare them, but the idea is to have a way to
identify which binaries in the official Debian archive are correlated
with which known .buildinfo files.

Currently, there's no tracking in buildinfo.debian.net of anything
other than what's published in .buildinfo files; this would at least
require an extra data source (e.g. Packages files from the archive)
and tying that to the corresponding .buildinfo files.

I suppose at import time, you could flag those .buildinfo files in
some special way...

The .buildinfo files that produced matching binary packages in the
Debian archive are, at least to me, more interesting than the ones
that are arbitrary builds from the test infrastructure. So it would be
nice if those could be flagged somehow in the UI and API.

Maybe some additional service would be a more appropriate place to
implement a correlation between in-archive Packages files and
.buildinfo files uploaded to buildinfo.debian.net.

@lamby
Copy link
Owner

lamby commented Aug 13, 2018

Tthe .buildinfo files are signed by the buildds (which we are recording in buildinfo.debian.net) so unless I'm missing someting we would simply mark these set of signatures as "official Debian" and use that for a comparison; no need for this Packages files matching AIUI?

@vagrantc
Copy link
Author

the .buildinfo files are signed by the buildds (which we are
recording in buildinfo.debian.net) so unless I'm missing someting we
would simply mark these set of signatures as "official Debian" and
use that for a comparison; no need for this Packages files matching
AIUI?

Sure, if you have a set of known buildd keys and ways of keeping them
updated (and the historically valid keys as well), that would be a
mostly ok assumption.

It wouldn't catch binary uploads from developers, which is still
unfortunately all-too-common practice. Marking all developer-signed
.buildinfos as "official Debian" wouldn't be appropriate, since
developers may upload a signed .buildinfo with a source-only upload,
which doesn't necessarily match the binaries in the archive.

@lamby
Copy link
Owner

lamby commented Aug 13, 2018

wfm

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants